Re: [TCLUG:17728] Motif has gone opensource!

["Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy@veldy.net>]

> > Well, if you are the original author, you can re-license whatever you
> > wrote, although you usually have to make a new version and can't
> > retroactively re-license.  So, you could release version 0.9 of a
> > program under the GPL, then tweak some things and release version 1.0
> > under a different license.  Of course, the 0.9 version remains GPLed,
> > and anyone can use that as a code base.

Actually, you were correct above.  My comment below was hasty.  I didn't
catch the original author part - which I assume means the copyright holder.

>
> No.  If you modify GPL code [and then version it], it still falls under
the
> GPL.  You MUST publish the sources (or diffs) if you distribute the binary
> code.  Thus - a company like Microsoft would refuse to use it.  BSD on the
> otherhand - you can do exactly what you said.  The original BSD licensed
> code must remain public - but the modified code does not have to.

>
> >
> > The Free Software Foundation recommends changing copyright ownership to
> > the FSF instead of any individual for just this reason (though it's
> > conceivable that the FSF could, in a particularly twisted move, change
> > all the software that is `owned' by them to be under something other
> > than the GPL).

That wouldn't affect existing [GPL] code - which could be maintained by
somebody else under the GPL.

My below comments are towards existing code that is GPL.  You are correct
when you say they can do whatever they like with the code and any subsequent
versions if they hold the copyright.

>
> FSF can't take it and change the license after it is GPL.  You can still
> hold the copyright, but once GPL'd, you loose the right to keep others
from
> using and modifying it.  Although they can't take it and make it
commercial
> without the source code remaining public like all GPL'd software.
>
> Rather - they can add licensing, but not change it - but GPL will still be
> there - and thus you will still have all the rights and restrictions of
GPL
> regaurdless of any other license they add to the code.
>

So, I apologize for my confusing the issue.

Tom Veldhouse
veldy@veldy.net